MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:          20 November 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003084609

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons 		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster 		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her 18 November 1986 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and her removal as a Drill Sergeant Candidate, filed on the restricted (R) fiche of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), be expunged from her records.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it would be in the interest of justice, to expunge her NJP, because she has served her punishment received over
16 years ago.  Further, she was a Drill Sergeant Candidate after the birth of her child.  In support of her case, she submits a physician's recommendation for her return to Drill Sergeant Duty, a reinstatement authorization for the Drill Sergeant Program and orders awarding her proficiency pay.   

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 April 1984.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75B (Administrative Specialist).     

On 1 October 1986, while in pay grade E-3, the applicant accepted NJP, for being derelict in the performance of her duties, between 8 September and 
2 October 1986 by failing to return undelivered mail to the mailroom.  Her punishment was reduction to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $167.00, pay per 
month for 1 month and extra duty and restriction for 14 days.  The officer imposing punishment directed that the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) be filed on the restricted portion of her OMPF.  She did not appeal.

On 3 August 1994, the applicant began Drill Sergeant training and was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri as a Drill Sergeant.  

On 1 September 1995, the applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant (E-6), as an Administrative Specialist.  

On 31 March 1998, the applicant was removed from Drill Sergeant Duty due to a medical condition (pregnancy) and placed under a physical profile.

On 12 November 1998, she was found medically fit for duties as a Drill Sergeant and recommended for re-instatement into the Drill Sergeant Program.

On 1 February 1999, the applicant was re-instated into the Drill Sergeant Program, in accordance with Army Regulation 614-200, paragraph 8-16d.  
The applicant was also authorized proficiency pay with a termination date of 
30 October 2000.  

On 1 January 2000, she was promoted to Sergeant First Class (E-7) in MOS 75H (Personnel Sergeant).  

Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers (E-5 and above) and officers may petition the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) for transfer of records of nonjudicial punishment from the performance to the restricted portion of the OMPF.  To support the request, the person must submit substantive evidence that the intended purpose of the Article 15 has been served and that the transfer is in 
the best interest of the Army.

Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  In pertinent part, this regulation states that the record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (DA Form 2627) issued on or after 1 November 1982, will be filed on the performance (P) or the restricted (R) fiche as directed in Item 5.  Even though disciplinary information is filed on the restricted portion of the OMPF it will be provided to the Command Sergeant Major (CSM)/Sergeant Major (SGM), SGM Academy selection, and CSM/SGM retention boards to ensure the best qualified soldiers are selected for these positions of highest trust.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations; the punishment imposed was within legal limits; and the record of proceedings (DA Form 2627) is properly on file.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that expunging it is in the best interest of the Army.

2.  The Army has an obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of an individual's service.  The placement of information that is or might be interpreted as being discreditable on the restricted fiche enables the Army to maintain that historical record without unduly jeopardizing the individual's career.  In this case the Board considers retaining these records is in the applicant's best interest because it shows clearly what happened in her case. 

3.  The Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides a valid reason for retention of Article 15s on the restricted fiche – when the time comes for the applicant to be considered for selection to higher positions, her disciplinary history must be provided to the selection board(s) to ensure a fair comparison is made between all eligible soldiers.  

The restricted portion of her OMPF would not normally be provided to an 
E-8 selection board and so should not affect the chances for her next promotion.  
4.  The applicant provides no evidence to show that record of her administrative removal as a Drill Sergeant Candidate for medical reasons has hindered her in any way.  In fact, it is an appropriate documentation of the circumstances surrounding a change in her duty status.  

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JHL _   __RLD___  ___LDS__DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084609	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003.11.20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A126.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.